' This ie a Critninal Revis Application under section :22 ((2jj oa the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, challenging the order passed in appeal under section 21 of the said Act.. By that order, the learned Commissioner substituted the order of the learned Tribu al directing the dete ti n in custody of the applicant for a period of 2 months under section 8 (3) (b) of the said Act by an order that the applica t herein should execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the enquiry and should furnish 3 sureties, each solvent in the sum of Rs, 20,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. Mr. Mohammad All Shaikh has admitted that the report submitted by the Police against the applicant specifically alleges th t the a applicant is a smu ler of Charm rid further gives instances f the alleged charas smuggling activities of the applicant. As such there is not only a substantial compliance of the provisions of section 6 but also section 14 (a) of the said Act. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant is presently on bail, having furnished the security as ordered by this Court in modification of the appellate order of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, there appears to be uaa valid gr and for further interference either with the appellant order of the learned Commissioner or the order of the Tribunal initiating proceedings under the said Act against the applicant, and his learned counsel frankly conceded this position.
3, There is, however, another aspect of the case which has greatly perturbed me. Mr. Mohammad All Sheikh's co tenti n w not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that through the Police report against the applicant was made on 25-41975, on which date the leassed Tribunal took cognizance of the case and initiated proceedings under the said Act against the applicant, no progress whatsoever has so far been made in the case and not a single witness has been examined. It is true that the diary of the case, a copy whereof has been filed with this petition, shows that the applicant was absent uptil 2402-1976, but even after making allowance f r that fact, there is no justification for this matter lingering on before the Tribunal without any real effort being made to proceed with the same. The mere fact that certain proceedings in respect of the matter were taken by the applicant before the High Court o an appeal against the order of the Tribunal being filed before the Tribunal not to have proceeded with the matter si oe admittedly no stay order was issued either by the High Court or the Commissioner, The object of the said Act, as appears from its preamble, is to provide e ectiv machinery of law to prevent the commission and repetition of crimes. The fact that under section 8 (iii) (b) the person proceeded under the Act is only to b detained for a period of two months, which period may be extended with th approval of the Commissioner for a further maximum period of 4 ruoaths, clearly indicates that the intention of the law-makers was a quick disposal o cases under the said Act, The delay caused by the Tribunal in the disposal o this case thus is in clear conflict with the intention of the law-makers. It shows that the learned Tribunal does not take his respo sibility seriously. In view the abnormal delay which has already occurred in the disposal of this case, it is expedient that the case should be disposed of quickly and no further delay fo any reason should occur, Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, the learned counsel for th State, gave an undertaking that the case against the applicant would he disposed of within 3 months. I expect this undertaking to be honoured end this Cott will take serious notice if it is not implemented.
4. For the reasons stated above, and in view of the undertaking given by Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, 1 would dismiss the revision application. Revission dismissed